What to read next

13 Comments

  1. 1

    Pradeep Dhawan

    But where are the Front fins?? which are shown in your post here http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/01/model-lca-mk2-at-aero-india.html
    anyways what are the changes??

    Reply
  2. 2

    Jith

    Hard to find any visual changes

    Reply
  3. 3

    Paul

    LCA MK2, you got to be kidding me, it looks the same as LCA MK1, there is no structural or aerodynamically changed. I have no idea why ADA or DRDO are calling it MK2, must be an eyewash for make us believe the LCA has evolved to be a better fighter. Dam when you have the funding then you need to work your ass to get the job done. This model represents LCA MK1 not and never and should not MK2. LCA MK2 should be a true evolution of LCA MK1 not this "Whatever"…

    I AM NOT SURPRISED, because I know ADA and DRDO will not make much airframe changes to the aircraft, even though they can do it, but why are they not doing it? why? Permanent job, life settle nothing to worry………

    I AM REALLY SURPRISED, there is no airframe changes in LCA MK2 even though it was said there will be some airframe changes.

    Shiv I or we need your opinion on this LCA MK2 and if you can Please catch home some responsible person who is in LCA project and ask his or them "WHAT IS SO UNIQUE ABOUT LCA MK2 AIRFRAME OR AERODYNAMIC STRUCTURE (EXTERNALLY) WHEN COMPARED WITH LCA MK1?"

    I feel very disappointing….

    (And I am really happy about AMCA grate photos, please post some more PLEASE!!!!)

    Reply
  4. 4

    Anonymous

    I dont find any changes…….

    Shiv any information you can share.

    Reply
  5. 5

    BALRAM

    Shiv said fins "may" be present in MK2..

    Reply
  6. 6

    Anonymous

    Hi Shiv,

    This Tejas MK2 fighter is a bit different than the image you posted recently. This aircraft doesnt have canard…………..

    Reply
  7. 7

    Aditya

    I'm pretty sure HAL weren't looking to improve the looks of the aircraft, which is what the general panic seems to be about.
    The actual changes in the aircraft have more to do with avionics than airframe design changes: there have been several articles where HAL have been quoted as saying that canards were found to have redundant function and hence they were dropped. Besides, if you look at the pictures carefully, you'll notice that in the background of a few of them is a chart listing the specs of the Tejas Mrk.II: Its gotten slightly longer and taller, no doubt to increase internal volume. They've also upgraded the its functions, added new features like fuel dump, added LERXs, strengthened the airframe. They've been fairly vague about the MMR, though: do they intend to develop and AESA or continue trying to improve the Elta hybrid?

    Reply
  8. 8

    ady

    the thing is that people expect too much its a simple fighter plane made to replace the mig 21 and nothing more so why extra money to be shed on auxillary wings and auxillary air intakes just let it do what it is made for. well personally i wanted HAL to make a new fighter plane based on tejas airframe and fit with pratt and whittney engine with thrust around 129 Kn well wishes do not come true easily therefore all said and done it will be what v call ALL WEATHER AIR SUPERIORITY MULTI ROLE COMBAT AIRCRAFT OF 4.5 GENERATION and the discussion does not end because canards or auxillary wings cause problem with maintenance and increase frontal radar cross section;)

    Reply
  9. 9

    Anonymous

    Baakbaas …lookin aweful…atleast its should be look better than MK1 totally disappointment…one thing more for ADA and HAL "hathi ke dant khane ke Aur & Dekhane ke Aur .

    Reply
  10. 10

    MUKESHINSAS

    LCA MK2 HAS UPGRADED HIGHER THRUST,STRUCTURAL WEIGHT REDUCTION, UPGRADED FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM, AESA RADAR, INCREASED FUEL CAPACITY. IMPROVED SURVIVABILITY FOR OUR PILOTS. LCA IS NEW AND GOOD LOOKING AND EFFECTIVE STRUCTURE. THESE ARE IMPORTANT FOR WAR. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A FASHION SHOW.

    Reply
  11. 11

    Anonymous

    With every other internal improvements. Structural stealth should have been been incorporated at-least partial. Even, AMCA does not seem to be completely structurally stealth. Well, very very disappointed. Because they could have done it.

    Reply
  12. 12

    Mr. Ra

    Mk2 model may be somewhat disproportionate to show a smaller air intake.

    Canards are going out of fashion as per the latest global design practices of TVC and stealth.

    Mk1 has the only and almost proven aerodynamic features available, so Mk2 has to be enlarged on the similar patterns and they can not jump directly to incorporate the features of AMCA within the Mk2.

    In short Mk2 has to be somewhat more powerful and faster than Mk1 with higher weapon and fuel carrying capacities. Better Radar, avionics, maneuvering, AoA etc may be extra feathers in the cap.

    Reply
  13. 13

    Sandy

    With every other internal improvements they should have incorporated structural stealth to Tejas Mkii. Even, AMCA seems to be partially stealth. Super maneuverability seems to be the objective and hence, reluctant to adopt complete stealth structure. But again, they do not intent to have vectored engines. Well disappointed very much, really.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.